G.S.SINGHVI, ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
K. K. Poonacha – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Judgment :-
G.S. SINGHVI, J.
1. Whether the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, "the 1976 Act") is liable to be declared void on the ground that the same was not reserved for the consideration of the President and did not receive his assent as per the requirement of Article 31(3) of the Constitution is the question that arises for consideration in these appeals filed against the judgments of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court which upheld the order of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the acquisition of the appellants' land.
2. Although, the above noted question was considered and answered in negative by three-Judge Bench in Bondu Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Development Authority and others (2010) 5 SCALE 70, Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the issue needs reconsideration because the three-Judge Bench solely relied upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench in M.P.V. Sundararamier and Company v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 1958 SCR 1422 but did not deal with the other Constitution Bench judgments in Deep Chand v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others (1959) Supp. 2 SCR 8, Mahant Sankarshan
M.P.V. Sundararamier and Company v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Mahant Sankarshan Ramanuja Das Goswami v. The State of Orissa
Jawaharmal v. State of Rajasthan
Behram Khurshed Pesikaka v. The State of Bombay
Saghir Ahmad v. The State of U.P.
Mahendra Lal Jaini v. The State of U.P.
Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka
Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.